Telangana High Court
M/S Narne Estates Pvt Ltd vs Goli Ashok Reddy on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2013 of 2021
Date: 30.04.2026
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another
... Petitioners
AND
Goli Ashok Reddy and another
... Respondents
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.12.2021 in I.A.No.344 of 2021 in O.S.No.63 of 2009 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir District.
2. HeardSri B. Raveendra Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.
2 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021
4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1 is running a real estate business since more than 20 years by providing the house plots to his brother soldiers,who being the ex- army person, this plaintiff No.1 purchased the land bearing Sy.No.585 measuring Ac.12.20 gts dry land situated at Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District from Goli Raji Reddy, Goli Linga Reddy, Goli Gopal Reddy and defendant No.1 under the Registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide Doc.No.104/IV/1988 dated 02.12.1998. Defendant No.1 without having any right or title in and over the suit schedule property and by using the forged and invalid ROR pass book and title deed has executed a registered sale deed fraudulently to an extent of Ac.03- 20 gts in Sy.No.585 vide Doc.No.1237/2008 dated 13.03.2008 at SRO, Bibinagar in favor of defendant No.2 by entering into a conspiracy with the SRO, Bibinagar by fraudulent manner without passing any sale consideration between them.By virtue of the registered irrevocable GPA, the plaintiff company became absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned land in Sy.No.585, which is clearly described in the schedule property.
5. It is further contended that in view of the execution of the said sale deed, the plaintiff has reported the matter before the 3 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 SHO of Bibinagar, where a crime was registered against the defendants.The defendants are no way concerned or having right in and over the suit schedule property and they hatched a plan to grab away the suit schedule property. Thereby, they falsely created in collusion the alleged registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff company.As such, the present suit was filed for cancellation of the alleged registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008.
6. During the pendency of the present suit, the present application was filed i.e., I.A.No.344 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, prayed to amend the plaint more particularly to amend the Court fee column and prayer column of the plaint and to amend the relief from cancellation of the registered sale deed document No.1237 of 2008 dated 13.03.2008 to declare the same as null and void.
7. The respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending that the said relief which is sought is barred by limitation and that the issue of limitation will be arising as the relief sought was known to the petitioner at the stage of filing the present suit. In spite of having knowledge of the same, 4 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 the plaintiff/petitioner cannot choose to seek the said relief and prayed to dismiss the application.
8. Now at the juncture, where the PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and the matter has been posted for cross-examination, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings.
9. Having heard both the counsel, the learned District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application with costs of Rs.500/- to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Bhongir and held that the petitioner seeking amendment is not tenable and now, substituting the relief of amendment of plaint from cancellation of document to declaration of document as null and voidis substantially changing the nature of the suit and the same cannot be permitted as the defendants have already acquired valid rights that the amendment sought is being at a belated stage.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed contending that the ground taken for seeking amendment of prayer cannot be taken as non-exercise of due diligence by the petitioner and it is on account of the advice of the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the relief of cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.1237 of 2008 dated 13.03.2008 of SRO, Bhongir was 5 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 sought for instead of seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed bearing Doc.No.1237 of 2008 is not binding on the petitioners/plaintiffs. It is purely a legal aspect which cannot be within the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs in spite of exercising utmost due diligence. Therefore, the test of exercise of due diligence by the party cannot be applied in this type of amendments.
11. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the proposed amendments are not going to change the nature of cause of action, nature of suit, nor it cause any injustice to the other side and it does not affect the rights of the defendants if already accrued and hence, prayed to allow the present revision.
12. Having heard the contentions and rival contentions of both the parties, admittedly the plaintiff herein has filed a suit against the defendant Nos.1 and 2, seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed and also for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaintiff's suit schedule property.
13. The main contention of the petitioner is that as the petitioner, due to the wrong advice, he could not able to file the 6 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 suit to declare the said registered sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.The reason for seeking amendment was that there being no proper legal guidance and there being a fault or negligence on the part of Advocate as has happened in the present instance case, he could not seek the proper relief and contended that in any suit, the amendment can be sought for at any stage, but with the leave of the Court.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed,as the suit is only at the inception stage.The Courts are entitled to grant relief to amend the pleadings unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his conduct he had caused injury to his opponent, which cannot be compensated by an order of cost.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (DEAD) by LRs. and Others 1, wherein the relevant paragraph is extracted below:
17. Factually in this case, in regard to the stand of the defendants that the declaration sought by the appellants is barred by limitation, there is dispute and it is not an admitted fact. While the learned counsel for the 1 2004 (6) SCC 415 7 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 defendant-respondents pleaded that under Entry 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the declaration sought for by the appellants in this case ought to have been done within 3 years when the right to sue first accrued, the appellant-plaintiff contends that the same does not fall under the said entry but falls under Entry 64 or 65 of the said Schedule of the Limitation Act which provides for a limitation of 12 years, therefore, according to them the prayer for declaration of title is not barred by limitation, therefore, both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering this question before rejecting the prayer for amendment. In such a situation where there is a dispute as to the bar of limitation this Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan [(2001) 2 SCC 472] has held: (SCC p. 472) "The amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation.
The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for." It is held that there is no absolute rule that amendment in such a case should not be allowed, and it is the Court's discretion in that regard, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Konkan Distilleries and Another v. PrabhakarGajananNaik and Others 2, wherein the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
11. Before we deal with the orders of the courts below, as to whether the application for amendment of the written statement and the counterclaim was rightly rejected or not, let us consider the laws on the question of allowing or rejecting a prayer for amendment of the pleadings when the plea of limitation was taken up by one of the 2 (2008) 14 SCC 632 8 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 parties in the suit. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation.
It is held that the amendment shall be permitted liberally and that the Court is of view that such amendment, if not allowed, the plaintiff would be put to suffer loss and injury.It is also further held that if each and every relief in every case where a relief is barred by limitation, the amendment should not to be allowed as it is always open to the Court to allow the amendment, if the said amendment really subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation.
17. In the present suit, the main relief sought in the suit is regarding cancellation of the registered sale deed Doc.No.1237 of 2008 dated 13.03.2008, which the plaintiff intends to amend the said relief instead of cancellation, it is sought for to declare registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued and contended that the aspect of limitation cannot be gone into at the 9 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 stage of allowing of the amendment. Prima facie, as the amendment is not barred by the limitation, the same can be permitted and the aspect of limitation has to be gone into after a full-fledged trial, as it is only a mixed question of law and fact.
19. This court also opines that there won't be any such prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the present amendment is permitted to be allowed for the aforesaid reasons.
20. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said amendment which is sought was already available to the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. Now at this juncture, he cannot seek the said relief, and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury and Others V. Habibur Rahman (Dead) through LRs. and Others 3, wherein the relevant paragraph is extracted below:
21. It was further laid down as under:
"The provisions of S. 39 make it clear that three conditions are requisite for the exercise of the jurisdiction to cancel an instrument :
(1) the instrument is void or voidable against the plaintiff; (2) plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left outstanding; (3) in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it proper to grant this relief of preventive justice. On the third aspect of the question the English and American authorities hold that where the document is void on its face the Court would not exercise its 3 2025 SCC Online SC 892 10 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 jurisdiction while it would if it were not so apparent. In India it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Court"
"The question that has to be considered depends on the first and second conditions set out above. As the principle is one of potential mischief, by the document remaining outstanding, it stands to reason the executant of the document should be either the plaintiff or a person who can in certain circumstances bind him. It is only then it could be said that the instrument is voidable by or void against him. The second aspect of the matter emphasizes that principle. For there can be no apprehension if a mere third party, asserting a hostile title creates a document. Thus, relief under S. 39 would be granted only in respect of an instrument likely to affect the title of the plaintiff and not of an instrument executed by a stranger to that title."
29. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to only seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' -- two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence, both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. [See : Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112]
30. As observed aforesaid, a plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellation. This is because such an instrument would neither be likely to affect the title of the plaintiff nor be binding on him. We have to our advantage two very old erudite judgments of the Madras High Court and one of the Privy Council on the subject.
31. In Unni v. Kunchi Amma, 1890 SCC OnLine Mad 5, the legal position has been thus explained:
"If a person not having authority to execute a deed or having such authority under certain circumstances which did not 11 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 exist, executes a deed, it is not necessary for persons who are not bound by it, to sue to set it aside for it cannot be used against them. They may treat it as non-existent and sue for their right as if it did not exist."
21. This court is of the opinion that the arguments which are submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. We are also relied upon the judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another 4, wherein it is held that:
71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.
71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
4
(2022) 16 SCC 1 12 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .
22. The Honorable Supreme Court while following the judgment in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sein Wadhera 5, wherein the relevant paragraph is extracted below:
16. Normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action. But it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation.
The question in the present case is whether by seeking the benefit of 5 (1984) 3 SCC 352 13 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 Section 39 of the new Act there is a change in the cause of action. In A.K. Gupta & Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796, 800 : (1967) 1 SCJ 223] this Court dealing with the cause of action observed as follows:
"The expression 'cause of action' in the present context does not mean 'every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed' as was said in Cooke v. Gill [(1873) LR 8 CP 107, 117 : 42 LJCP 98] in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd. [(1962) 2 All ER 24 : (1962) 1 WLR 520] and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile."
It is held that if a prayer for amendment merely adds to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation.
23. In Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan 6, wherein the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] , L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438] , Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] , Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram [(1978) 2 SCC 91] and various other authorities, this Court in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai [(2000) 1 SCC 712 : JT (1999) 10 SC 61] held: (SCC p. 715, para 3) "3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the 6 (2001) 2 SCC 472 14 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation."
6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the said judgment, wherein it is held that the amendment though properly made, cannot relate back to the date of filing of the suit, but to the date of filing of the application and the limitation can be made an issue in the suit itself and in the present case, as already the facts are already on record, only amendment adds to the extent of a relief basing on the same pleadings.
24. Considering Pankaja and another(1st cited supra),wherein it is held that the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide 15 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 and may be appropriately exercised at any stage in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the law of limitation.
25. In the present case, the relief which is sought is only to the extent of amendment to the prayer rather than the pleadings, which can be permitted and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited above, the said limitation aspect can be gone into by the trial Court by framing an issue and giving an opportunity to the defendant to contest the same.
26. With the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the Order passed by the learned trial Court is without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the findings in the order passed by the learned trial Court is patently erroneous on the face of it, which makes this Court to interfere and quash the same. Hence, the said order deserves to be interdicted and the same is liable to be set aside.
27. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order and Decree dated 13.12.2021 in I.A.No.344 of 2021 in O.S.No.63 of 2009 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir District and allowing the I.A.No.344 of 2021, permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out the amendment as sought for within 15 days from the date of receipt 16 of 16 NNR, J CRP_2013_2021 of a copy of this order, and also file the neat copy before the trial Court. The trial Court shall proceed further dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date: 30.04.2026.
vjb